Ramblings and doodlings of an unsettled mind!

A Bar Council member strikes back against the Bar Council and its President for the professional body’s stance on BERSIH and attacks against the Police. Lawyer Ranjit Singh Dhillon post a lot of questions for the Bar Council President and made remarks, “There are bad apples in the Bar Council”.

Regarding the report on BERSIH 3.0, Singh claimed the Bar Council is contradicting themselves. He is of the firm belief that there was no proper study for the report to be churned out.

Wednesday May 9, 2012

Ranjit goes on YouTube to seek Bar Council’s explanation on rally

PETALING JAYA: A displeased Malaysian Bar member took to the YouTube to demand that the council explain in its interim report what caused the violence during Bersih 3.0.

In the seven-minute video uploaded three days ago, lawyer Ranjit Singh Dhillon said Malaysian Bar president Lim Chee Wee had “shot himself in the foot” through contradictory statements in the report regarding police provocation by protesters.

“He (Lim) is the leader of a professional body, and in the space of 26 pages he is contradicting himself.

“Law is technical jargon. We owe a duty to the public. Paint the full picture, let them judge,” he said of the interim report.

He noted that in the early part of the report, the Bar Council said that the police were not provoked but towards the end of the report it said the police were provoked.

Ranjit expressed surprise that Lim had kept mum about what had triggered the violence in Dataran Merdeka during the rally, claiming that despite the barricade breach, police remained patient until the protesters were 50m past it.

The council’s interim report was based on observations by 78 council volunteers who stationed themselves at six positions on the ground during the April 28 sit-in protest.

It had highlighted that police brutality at the recent rally was at a higher level than its predecessor, Bersih 2.0.

Ranjit noted that freedom of assembly in every democratic, civilised country had to have its limitations.

When comparing both rallies, he outlined that in Bersih 2.0 protesters had marched to Stadium Merdeka even when the authorities denied them a permit to assemble there.

However, the Bersih 3.0 organisers asked for Dataran Merdeka but were offered Stadium Merdeka by the authorities.

He agreed that Bersih was a gathering of NGOs, but said that in every such gathering there would be political leaders who would work arm-in-arm with the organisers.

************

Majority of Malaysians are getting very irritated with the Bar Council. Probably, majority of the lawyers too. They should come out in the open and voice their discern, aloud. Like a lawyer always firmly uphold, “The Constitution is the Supreme Law”. Bar Council’s stance on BERSIH 3.0, is clearly against that.

“For the sake of Malaysia, we are the only professional legal body they could count on. Don’t let us down”. The message is clear.

Bloody good one that one. Bravo Ranjit. Agree with what he says almost 100%. There must be more of the “silent majority” among the Bar Council members. I hope more will come out and speak up like Ranjit.

I also hope more of the responsible kind of members will attend the next Bar Council annual general meeting to elect office bearers. And elect the responsible ones into the committee. Ranjit or his kind of thinking members should be President.

I also hope the Police will arrest more of the Bersih committee and the politicians associated with them. Ambiga, Anwar, Azmin Ali, Lim Kit Siang, Hadi Awang included.

So many offences committed. Instigating to rally at a place prohibited by an order issued by the Magistrate. Marching, when the Peaceful Assembly Act says no marching. minors below 21 years old also joining, bloody hell, even small children brought to the scene of the crime. Plus an Aussie foreigner Xenophone whatever his name participating, also prohibited under the Act. Bersih leaders cannot say they do not know. They said 70 Bar Council members were placed her and there supposedly to control the crowd.

Bersih leaders and the politicians near the Dataran Merdeka must be responsible for the breaching of the space declared inviolable. And the riot that occurred when Police tried to disperse the crowd. (Btw, why were Lim Kit Siang and Hadi Awang not seen, mentioned or reported on at the height of the melee? Cunning and absconded the scene ka?)

That’s your opinion – even if you call yourself genuine voter. There millions other genuine voters out there. Who says Anwar is a choice? Didn’t see what he was at Bersih 3.0 etc? Minority voice, brader.

Even the 2008 tsunami oso wanted to coup d’etat via katak lompat. Promised the world all sorts but never delivered. Bad mouthed the country all sorts still only 25,000 came to the rally. OK lah, give them some more, say 40,000 llah. Even so, only a small minority turned up.

Don agree wiith you “most voters have decided .. long time ago.” See the FELDA durian runtuh etcl, you’ ll be surprised that the son of Aliman fella will be taking his share and might even quietly tell his friends and relatives, pangkah lah mana yang kamu mahu.

Ranjit Singh Dillion,who is he.Is ask a few senior lawyers and they said never heard of him.If he a criminal laywer everybody shold know him like Shafee.He must be acting for small case like curi basikal ar curi ayam.

I think he got his idea by watching utube or read the blog.If he is with the demonstrator Berseh 3. We should take his view seriously.

Good try Ranjit.I think he is suffering from lack of love syndrom and need everybody attention .He need to feel he is wanted.

I am one of the “silent majority” lawyers the first comment referred to.

There are many of us actually, and we are slowly but surely getting tired of the Bar Council making lawyers look like idiots. We support having a civil society, but street demos are not the way to go. If lawyers will not uphold the law, then who will?

Shame on you, Chee Wee. I do not pay my BC subscription fees for you to use the Bar Council as a personal soap box to spout your political views and further your own agenda. Do not say you speak for us.

I urge other lawyers out there – please, speak up against this idiot before he does further damage to the credibility of the legal profession.